"The White House agrees with the 114.000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren't bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It's common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers' needs."

It's kind of ridiculous that it was ever a non-right in the first place. If unlocking becomes a legal right, that's a no-brainer, good. But why stop there, all phones should be carrier unlocked at the point of sale. What's the purpose of locking other than to create a technical barrier for consumers? Many will find they cannot insert a SIM card of their choice without first getting their phone unlocked.

I've heard some people claim that the phone has to be locked in order to pay back the phone subsidy, but that's a silly claim because the customer is still liable for the contract payments regardless of whatever other SIMs the customer might want to use. I still have to pay my contractual phone bill whether I use the phone or not.

Was this article submitted in response to my recent link to the whitehouse petitions? Funny how that works